I think Gamebryo gets too much flak and Bethesda's programmers not enough. That engine is pretty flexible and has been used for a wide range of games.

But still Oblivion and Fallout 3 are definitely the most stable Bethesda games in their history. Morrowind basically didn't work until after a few patches and most of their older games never worked right.

baltar wrote on Jan 25, 2011, 15:32:Screw all this noise we need a sequel to Terminator Future Shock and Skynet. Get to it Bethesda!

I'm thinking the game engine must be rather similar to the original, meaning it's a DirectX 9 deferred renderer which usually means it's impossible to support AA. Somehow NV and ATI hack it in these games sometimes though (usually there are quirks however like blur).

Basically the developer doesn't care about AA and is perhaps using very obsolete technology. And obviously two of the game's platforms can't handle it anyway so why bother I guess. Yippee.

But I do like it when Steam sells 3 month old games for $15 sometimes. I don't buy new releases anymore because I've caught on. Well, that and "new" releases feel more and more like rehashes these days.

DX was pretty awesome back in 2000. If the game came out new today as it is, it would be laughable and I can't imagine that it would sell. It is really a rough game by today's standards, and I don't simply mean the visuals.

What does it take to make something that sticks out like that today? The catch to this is that the audience has changed a lot. There are a lot of aspects that will have to be changed to meet the expectations of modern gamers.

IMO perhaps the worst aspect to DX2 was the tiny maps through almost the entire game. It was super fakey. I'm not one to mind futuristic takes on the world though. His comment on that is strange. I'm gonna guess that this guy isn't a big sci-fi fan.

Never touched ME2. Thought the original was somewhat tedious and predictable (too much like KOTOR in some ways). The third person combat in ME1 was quite buggy, but I did think it was better than KOTOR's turn based combat. I'm not going to pay monthly for that though.

There are many great Trek games from the past that I've played a ton and I just didn't see what STO was bringing to the table. I don't dig the grind thing so I've just avoided the game. The game looks like what has come before in a number of games, but with today's popular grind gameplay blended in.

I do wish this game would have turned into something more like Star Wars Galaxies in its scale. Or maybe more like The Old Republic might be like. More than just stupid endless combat in space or what looks like boring Mass Effect style ground action.

Honestly I don't think I entirely agree with many of these MMOs being called RPGs because they often lack depth outside of the expected repetitive leveling, looting and click combat. It's a new kind of gaming that isn't necessarily attractive to single player RPG players. IMO anyway.

I think GW attracted different RPG players than the MoMos do. It just comes down to what you're looking for from your gaming. I never even did the PVP part of the game! There are definitely two sides to the GW series. I think it's its own style of online RPG and there's nothing wrong with that in the slightest.

I'm not really much into the level-grind-loot phenomenon myself but I enjoyed just seeing all of the world and completing the storyline. I put probably 100 hours into it, unlocking a ton of stuff and trying a few builds. I liked to look of the game and the atmosphere too.